New Hampshire lawmakers consider raising sports betting age from 18 to 21 to curb addiction

The New Hampshire House Ways and Means Committee convened on January 21, 2025, to discuss House Bill 83, which proposes raising the minimum age for sports betting from 18 to 21. This legislative move comes in the wake of a significant increase in sports betting across the United States, following the 2018 Supreme Court decision that allowed states to legalize the practice. Currently, 40 states permit sports betting, with 32 allowing online wagering, and only seven states maintain a minimum age of 21.

The bill's primary advocate, Representative Fellows, highlighted concerns regarding the cognitive development of younger individuals, particularly males aged 18 to 20, who are statistically more prone to engage in risky behaviors, including gambling. He emphasized that raising the age limit would provide these young adults with additional time to mature, potentially reducing the likelihood of gambling addiction and financial distress.

During the meeting, committee members raised questions about the fiscal implications of the proposed age increase. Representative Opel pointed out that while 18 to 20-year-olds accounted for over $14 million in wagers in the previous fiscal year, the actual revenue generated for the state from this age group was approximately $639,000. This discrepancy raised concerns about the potential impact on state revenue if the bill were to pass.

Marlene Warner, CEO of the Massachusetts Council on Gaming and Health, also testified in favor of the bill, arguing that the immature brain of younger individuals is ill-equipped to handle the risks associated with gambling. She noted that most states with legalized sports betting have set the minimum age at 21, suggesting that New Hampshire should follow suit to protect its youth from the dangers of early gambling exposure.

Other supporters, including marketing professionals from the Massachusetts Council on Gaming and Health, echoed these sentiments, stating that the normalization of gambling among younger individuals poses significant risks. They argued that the potential revenue from this age group does not outweigh the risks associated with their gambling habits.

The committee concluded the public hearing without a definitive decision, leaving the future of House Bill 83 uncertain. The discussions underscored the ongoing debate about balancing state revenue generation with the need to protect vulnerable populations from the potential harms of gambling.